Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep — sources added, as well. --Haemo 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Makers[edit]

Notability, Advertising. Also Conflict of Interest due to article was created and heavily edited by Heritagemakers and multiple single-purpose users who may be resellers. Clubjuggle 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that, while Clubjuggle has had an account since 2004, s/he has had less than 80 edits in that time. About 1/3 of them have been AfD related. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be debating the nomination on its merits? I'm not personally invested in this at all. If the community consensus is that this article is encyclopedic, I'm fine with that. We need to determine that on the basis of the article, though. I don't believe ad hominem arguments are useful here. --Clubjuggle 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice to point out accounts with low edits participating in AfD discussions. The closing admin is welcome to ignore the information, but pointing it out happens very frequently in these discussions. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as company is small, but meets WP:CORP regardless of any COI of some of the editors. The article is remarkably free of POV for being as extensively edited by possible COI accounts. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Nihonjoe. This is cited fairly well, but the external links is kind of spammish though. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I disagree with the above. This is just another little company that is not notable. The article reads like a solicitation to get more members.Balloonman 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's well sourced by reliable sources and relatively NPOV. Can be cleaned up a bit but that's not a reason to delete. Thin Arthur
Keep, doesn't read like an ad, and passes WP:CORP. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Notable, but an ad. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In looking at the article the only reliable, nontrivial secondary source I saw was this Herald Extra article. The rest appeared to be press releases or the company's own site. Is a single reliable source really all that is necessary to establish notability, or are there other sources I'm missing? I'm not criticizing, just seeking a better understanding of the process. --Clubjuggle 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just added four more general refs which should push this article solidly over the minimum for reliable sources which can be verified, thereby firmly establishing notability. This article absolutely meets WP:CORP with the new refs. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Fair enough, and thanks for that. Is there a procedure for withdrawing an AfD nomination? --Clubjuggle 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can post that here, and then ask on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion for someone to come close it early as long as no one else objects. You can also just let the discussion wait until five days have passed, and then someone will likely happen along and close it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.